Support NeoGAF

[Erigu]

Do you think its random that those who believe choose these particular things to be what they call evidence. Such as The Bible or Jesus?

Does it matter? The point is that they're not evidence.

 

[Ashes]

Have not most scientists on both sides of the spectrum agreed there was a big bang. One singular point at which the universe began?

and?

Does it matter? The point is that they're not evidence.

For you maybe. His point is that for some people, the bible is.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

It's unsurprising. Accepting the Bible or your preacher's interpretation of it takes no critical thought at all and tends to offer simple, straightforward answers for things, while holding some of those same questions to scientific scrutiny leads one to solutions that might seems complicated and unsatisfying.

I just relate them to each other mainly because simply God himself is stated in the Bible along with the person of Jesus Christ and the other aspects of what is stated in it.

Its logical to assume and accept that.


If I read Mary had a Little Lamb. I would assume multiple things by reading that.

Mary is somebody, she has something, it is little and its a lamb. That is how I come to the relationship to those things about God and who it was from etc.

As far as I can tell its simple truth and absolute.

Mary is something.
She had something
That something is little
and it is a lamb.

 

[Cyan]

Some of my best friends are atheists. We have had some great discussions. The biggest thing I find is that Christians accept (The Existence of the Universe, The Bible, Jesus Christ etc) as evidence.

They say the believe and accept it as evidence.

However Atheists as far as my friends do not accept any of the above mentioned at all. In fact as many on Gaf have shown me. It does not count as any evidence at all in there eyes. They just simply exist.

All right, I'll take you up on it. The Bible is evidence for the Christian God (just as the Koran is evidence for Allah, the Torah is evidence for Yahweh, etc etc). It's quite weak evidence, and given the low prior probability does not move me to believe in God, but it is evidence.

The existence of the universe is not evidence for any of the above gods. Why would it be?

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

and?


How many possibilities do you think there are for the "big bang" to have gotten started?


For you maybe. His point is that for some people, the bible is.

Thanks for that one Ashes.

 

[Erigu]

For you maybe.

It's not a subjective thing. If they think any of that is evidence for the existence of their god, they're simply wrong.

 

[Count Dookkake]

For you maybe. His point is that for some people, the bible is.

Only if we pervert the definition of evidence, which would be stupid and counter to actual discussion of reality.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Another great answer. Thanks Log \=/

So you believe its all in the minds of Christians and individuals like myself?

Yes. Until you prove otherwise. I'm very much willing to believe in anything which can support itself with hard evidence and not nebulous logical meanderings shrouded in mystery.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

All right, I'll take you up on it. The Bible is evidence for the Christian God (just as the Koran is evidence for Allah, the Torah is evidence for the Yahweh, etc etc). It's quite weak evidence, and given the low prior probability does not move me to believe in God, but it is evidence.

The existence of the universe is not evidence for any of the above gods. Why would it be?

Regardless of how weak or strong. You just stated it is evidence. There is my question that I see so many answers for.

So many in here do not count it as such. Which is what Im trying to figure out. Why do some accept it and believe it as evidence and some do not?

There have been some really good answers so far. From Count, Ashes and some others.

 

[KtSlime]

So whilst the line drawn is philosophically inclined, you would discriminate based on things that require no position on the matter - i.e. researchers studying cancer, mathematicians, public thinkers, artists, authors, even critics.

I find the stance very silly. Even in regards to philosophers.

I said it was the ideal. It is more ideal to have people think critically rather than to have people perform sacrifices, believe in omens, say sympathetic magic words, or stray from a black cat's path - yep.

I do think it all comes down to the task at hand. I certainly don't want my oncologist to be the kind of man or woman who goes home and pokes pins in a doll in hopes that it destroys my cancer. While the gesture is nice, well intentioned, what have you, it is not a valid way of dealing with cancer, and I would rather have my doctor be working towards curing my cancer rather than spending time on superstitions.

I've read books by authors that believed all sorts of things, and always in the back of my mind I feel bad for them for the circumstances that allowed them to shed so much of their ignorance but not quite all of it. I know I'd greater appreciate CS Lewis' writings if he could have taken that extra step, but then of course, who's to say he'd write the same thing.

So it once again comes down to my ideal. Now if we were having a discussion on what other people think should be ideal for members of the intelligentsia I'd imagine there are people that would expect them to all be God fearing, pious members.

I guess if we are going by the definition of someone who has had lots of schooling then even I and the Pope, pretty much anyone here can be considered a member (especially if you are comparing us to the intelligentsia of the past).

 

[CornBurrito]

Regardless of how weak or strong. You just stated it is evidence. There is my question that I see so many answers for.

So many in here do not count it as such. Which is what Im trying to figure out. Why do some accept it and believe it as evidence and some do not?

There have been some really good answers so far. From Count, Ashes and some others.

I believe that people can take the Bible as evidence for the existence of god. I do not find it to be valid or good evidence however, if that makes sense to you.

For example, if I had a superstitious friend and played a recording of me making "ohhhhhhhh" sounds they might take that as evidence for the existence of ghosts, especially if I also lie to them and state that it was a recording of ghosts. However, it would be really flimsy evidence that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Erigu]

Regardless of how weak or strong. You just stated it is evidence.

And that's why you shouldn't play along, Cyan! ^^;

So many in here do not count it as such. Which is what Im trying to figure out. Why do some accept it and believe it as evidence and some do not?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the fact there's a book out there talking about the supposed Christian God is extremely weak "evidence" (anybody can write about anything, real or not).

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

I believe that people can take the Bible as evidence for the existence of god. I do not find it to be valid or good evidence however, if that makes sense to you.

For example, if I had a superstitious friend and played a recording of me making "ohhhhhhhh" sounds they might take that as evidence for the existence of ghosts, especially if I also lie to them and state that it was a recording of ghosts. However, it would be really flimsy evidence that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

Thanks for your great answer as well. Im not arguing the weakness or strongness. I just was wondering why there are some who simply downright diss it as evidence at all.

You stated yourself as well its not valid or good but it is still evidence. Thanks CornB \=/

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

And that's why you shouldn't play along, Cyan! ^^;


Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the fact there's a book out there talking about the supposed Christian God is extremely weak evidence (anybody can write about anything, real or not)

Thanks Erigu as well. Thats what I have been looking and searching for in these forums.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Regardless of how weak or strong. You just stated it is evidence. There is my question that I see so many answers for.

So many in here do not count it as such. Which is what Im trying to figure out. Why do some accept it and believe it as evidence and some do not?

There have been some really good answers so far. From Count, Ashes and some others.

It is not a valid piece of evidence. There is no solid factual evidence to support any of its claims. The same goes for the Quran.

The only reason why it is accepted by anyone is due to cultural bias. This is why you keep discussing the bible and not the Quran. Have you read the Quran in Arabic? I heard it has such dope rhymes that it is clear evidence that God wrote it.

Inconsistent revelation. You claim to have evidence of a god, and someone else with a piece of historic text which is quite different form yours claims it to be evidence of their god.

This so called evidence is without merit. It being a piece of evidence is basically an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Erigu]

Thanks Erigu as well. Thats what I have been looking and searching for in these forums.

I bet it is.

 

[CornBurrito]

Thanks for your great answer as well. Im not arguing the weakness or strongness. I just was wondering why there are some who simply downright diss it as evidence at all.

You stated yourself as well its not valid or good but it is still evidence. Thanks CornB \=/

I'd imagine that some do not even want to give bad evidence the status as evidence.

For example, some have argued in the past that god is evil because there is suffering in the world. Some Christians have argued that suffering is not evidence of an evil god. Though I suspect what they really mean is what I mean by bad or invalid evidence.

 

[Amir0x]

Only if we pervert the definition of evidence, which would be stupid and counter to actual discussion of reality.

that's ok religion perverts everything else anyway, why not evidence too?

 

[Cyan]

Regardless of how weak or strong. You just stated it is evidence. There is my question that I see so many answers for.

So many in here do not count it as such. Which is what Im trying to figure out. Why do some accept it and believe it as evidence and some do not?

It's not too complicated. If you look at the earlier discussion between me and Log4Girlz, you can see that we view evidence and certainty somewhat differently. I say that you can't be absolutely certain of anything, merely certain to within epsilon probability. Log rounds it off and says that's the same as certainty, which isn't unreasonable.

As far as evidence, we're using the terms differently. For me, the Bible is evidence in that it makes the probability of the Christian God a tiny bit larger. For Log, it again rounds off into basically the same thing as zero evidence. (Some others may be using "evidence" to mean something similar to "proof", and by that standard, the Bible is definitely not evidence)

If you're asking why Christians accept it as evidence while atheists generally don't, well that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? Christians believe in God and therefore see the Bible as the divine word or whatever you want to call it, and therefore see it as evidence of His existence. Atheists don't believe in any part of that circle and so don't see it as evidence.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

It is not a valid piece of evidence. There is no solid factual evidence to support any of its claims. The same goes for the Quran.

The only reason why it is accepted by anyone is due to cultural bias. This is why you keep discussing the bible and not the Quran. Have you read the Quran in Arabic? I heard it has such dope rhymes that it is clear evidence that God wrote it.

Inconsistent revelation. You claim to have evidence of a god, and someone else with a piece of historic text which is quite different form yours claims it to be evidence of their god.

This so called evidence is without merit.

Was wondering if you read my statement bout reading a book "Mary Had A Little Lamb"

What do we know or is evidence from the book?

Mary is something

She had something

That something is little

That something is a lamb.

Those are all factual and absolute statements.

Just as God is in the Bible, mentioned in the person of Jesus Christ and is said to create the universe.

Regardless if you believe or not does still not change the fact that God states he created the universe. He is a part of Jesus Christ. '

This is evidence based on what you read. Whether you believe it to be true or not? Or whether its solid, valid, etc. as well.

 

[Count Dookkake]

that's ok religion perverts everything else anyway, why not evidence too?

Amen.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

It's not too complicated. If you look at the earlier discussion between me and Log4Girlz, you can see that we view evidence and certainty somewhat differently. I say that you can't be absolutely certain of anything, merely certain to within epsilon probability. Log rounds it off and says that's the same as certainty, which isn't unreasonable.

As far as evidence, we're using the terms differently. For me, the Bible is evidence in that it makes the probability of the Christian God a tiny bit larger. For Log, it again rounds off into basically the same thing as zero evidence. (Some others may be using "evidence" to mean something similar to "proof", and by that standard, the Bible is definitely not evidence)

If you're asking why Christians accept it as evidence while atheists generally don't, well that's the crux of the problem, isn't it? Christians believe in God and therefore see the Bible as the divine word or whatever you want to call it, and therefore see it as evidence of His existence. Atheists don't believe in any part of that circle and so don't see it as evidence.

Yeah man. I completely agree. Thats what I have been looking for in here. I appreciate it Cyan \=/

 

[Hitchslap]

I'm out of this for a while, likely years. Christopher Hitchens once said "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence." and that challenged me for a while, but being so principled sucks. I won't be a spectator because I don't want to watch. I'm tired of hearing and making arguments. I feel like some guy who keeps fighting with his ex rather than moving on with a new life.

As I get older, I’m starting to feel the same way. The probability that religious people will change their minds because of the rational arguments I present is simply too small…and without some positive reinforcement the conversation becomes a chore, not rewarding enough to bother (And I do not get high on feeling “superior” only because I try to use reason in every aspect of my life…).

Of course I still react and voice my opinions when circumstances demand it (“the pope is a saint because he rides the train”, “gay people should not be able to marry” etc.) but not with the same intensity as before…

I’m also trying not to use the word ‘religion’ when dealing with arguments based on faith because it makes everything so much harder…instead I’m talking a lot about rational thinking and science and hope that my conversants will make the connection by themselves.

 

[Ashes]

I said it was the ideal. It is more ideal to have people think critically rather than to have people perform sacrifices, believe in omens, say sympathetic magic words, or stray from a black cat's path - yep.

I do think it all comes down to the task at hand. I certainly don't want my oncologist to be the kind of man or woman who goes home and pokes pins in a doll in hopes that it destroys my cancer. While the gesture is nice, well intentioned, what have you, it is not a valid way of dealing with cancer, and I would rather have my doctor be working towards curing my cancer rather than spending time on superstitions.

I've read books by authors that believed all sorts of things, and always in the back of my mind I feel bad for them for the circumstances that allowed them to shed so much of their ignorance but not quite all of it. I know I'd greater appreciate CS Lewis' writings if he could have taken that extra step, but then of course, who's to say he'd write the same thing.

So it once again comes down to the my ideal. Now if we were having a discussion on what other people think should be ideal for members of the intelligentsia I'd imagine there are people that would expect them to all be God fearing, pious members.

I guess if we are going by the definition of someone who has had lots of schooling then even I and the Pope, pretty much anyone here can be considered a member (especially if you are comparing us to the intelligentsia of the past).

As far as I can see, you moved from 'mostly correct' and 'still leaving some wiggle room' to your current stance which is 'it is ideal'.

I think it's daft to say: You believe in god? no entry to the intelligentsia for you... even if you painted the picture of century, wrote genius code, and commented so well on the failure of the political state in the 21st century.

I suppose most atheists don't think like that, but I find the ones who do very silly.

 

[Erigu]

Was wondering if you read my statement bout reading a book "Mary Had A Little Lamb"

What do we know or is evidence from the book?

Mary is something

She had something

That something is little

That something is a lamb.

Those are all factual and absolute statements.

Or it could be fiction. You know.

 

[CatPee]

Thanks Erigu as well. Thats what I have been looking and searching for in these forums.

So you literally just seek someone to justify your own thought that the Bible is evidence?

Really?

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

Or it could be fiction. You know.

Yes it could be. It is all evidence whether it is fiction or non fiction. That is my point. It all comes down to the person accepting it or not.


Its a simple yes or no answer.

The biggest question is. Who is the ultimate judge of which is right or not?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Was wondering if you read my statement bout reading a book "Mary Had A Little Lamb"

What do we know or is evidence from the book?

Mary is something

She had something

That something is little

That something is a lamb.

Those are all factual and absolute statements.

Just as God is in the Bible, mentioned in the person of Jesus Christ and is said to create the universe.

Regardless if you believe or not does still not change the fact that God states he created the universe. He is a part of Jesus Christ. '

This is evidence based on what you read. Whether you believe it to be true or not? Or whether its solid, valid, etc. as well.

You are QUOTING A STORY.

Let us pick up AN XMEN COMIC SHALL WE? What can we discuss about it?

Wolverine is in it
Wolverine has claws
Therefore Wolverine factually has claws.

In the context of the story, we can make all of those observations. BUT WHETHER HE EXISTS OR NOT IN REALITY IS A DIFFERENT STORY.

Jesus being in the bible is EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE FACTUALLY MENTIONS JESUS AND NOTHING ELSE.

Does that help?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yes it could be. It is all evidence whether it is fiction or non fiction. That is my point. It all comes down to the person accepting it or not.


Its a simple yes or no answer.

The biggest question is. Who is the ultimate judge of which is right or not?

Who says there is an ultimate judge?

 

[oneils]

RRM, I think you might be confusing evidence with proof. The bible might be evidence of god in so much that it contains testimonials of its existence. However, testimony is probably the weakest form of evidence out there. We cannot question those testimonies as the people making them are no longer around to answer questions. And, evidence is not necessarily proof. The bible is not proof of god's existence.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

So you literally just seek someone to justify your own thought that the Bible is evidence?

Really?

Yeah man. Honestly its interesting to see Atheists and Theists assert the same thing. Its a matter of choosing whether it is all true or its not. Does not mean Im going to hate on the other person or anything but we all seek truth right?

 

[Ashes]

It's not a subjective thing. If they think any of that is evidence for the existence of their god, they're simply wrong.

Of course evidence can be a subjective thing. Never heard of a court?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yeah man. Honestly its interesting to see Atheists and Theists assert the same thing. Its a matter of choosing whether it is all true or its not. Does not mean Im going to hate on the other person or anything but we all seek truth right?

This is not a fair description of what is occurring, unless you purposefully ignore the levels of strength evidence may have.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

RRM, I think you might be confusing evidence with proof. The bible might be evidence of god in so much that it contains testimonials of its existence. However, testimony is probably the weakest form of evidence out there. We cannot question those testimonies as the people making them are no longer around to answer questions. And, evidence is not necessarily proof. The bible is not proof of god's existence.

Do we all agree that evidence or proof would have to be true? Im pretty sure we all agree on that one.

 

[Erigu]

It is all evidence whether it is fiction or non fiction. That is my point.

If the bar is so low, that makes your argument rather meaningless in the first place.
Maybe we should just stop with this nonsense and switch to "proof", indeed. Do you have proof of God's existence?

Of course evidence can be a subjective thing. Never heard of a court?

Oh, enough with this shit... It's not proof, alright? Better, now?

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

This is not a fair description of what is occurring, unless you purposefully ignore the levels of strength evidence may have.

Its what I have been observing. So Im wrong about that too. LOL Come on Count. Would you like to process my thoughts for me?

 

[KtSlime]

As far as I can see, you moved from 'mostly correct' and 'still leaving some wiggle room' to your current stance which is 'it is ideal'.

I think it's daft to say: You believe in god? no entry to the intelligentsia for you... even if you painted the picture of century, wrote genius code, and commented so well on the failure of the political state in the 21st century.

I suppose most atheists don't think like that, but I find the ones who do very silly.

Yay, we're all members of the intelligentsia, good work, thanks for the promotion.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Its what I have been observing. So Im wrong about that too. LOL Come on Count. Would you like to process my thoughts for me?

I can't replicate the effects of the brainwashing you have endured.

I can observe how your understanding of words is flawed.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

That makes the word "evidence" rather meaningless.
Maybe we should just stop with this nonsense and switch to "proof", indeed. Do you have proof of God's existence?

We could really just stick to "Truth" of Gods existence. Really its a True or Not true situation.

 

[Ashes]

Yay, we're all members of the intelligentsia, good work, thanks for the promotion.

ok.

Alright, I think I'm done with the thread again for a while. ha ha.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Yes it could be. It is all evidence whether it is fiction or non fiction. That is my point. It all comes down to the person accepting it or not.


Its a simple yes or no answer.

The biggest question is. Who is the ultimate judge of which is right or not?

Humans can use logical thinking to best assess the likelihood of concepts existing or not. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence must exist to support it. If I wanted to insist that Wolverine exists, turning to a comic book is meaningless. Referring to the bible is meaningless. It can be just be thought of as a list of claims. The next step is to try to find evidence support such claims. We have evidence that a Jesus really did exist. But what of his powers? Early on, scientists were convinced of the validity of the bible and set forth to prove its claims. Early geography was the study of formations caused by the biblical flood. People believed the earth was only six thousand years old and set out to find observable proof of the claims.

There is a reason why science no longer believes such nonsense. Absolutely no evidence could be found to support those claims. Often, they found extremely contradictory evidence. The earth is now dated at 4 billion years old with high certainty. It would require an infinitely powerful being to exist to falsify evidence to explain a young earth now.

The bible is completely useless as "evidence". Again, claiming it is evidence of anything is more opinion than fact.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

I can't replicate the effects of the brainwashing you have endured.

I can observe how your understanding of words is flawed.

Are your words flawed?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

RRM, I think you might be confusing evidence with proof. The bible might be evidence of god in so much that it contains testimonials of its existence. However, testimony is probably the weakest form of evidence out there. We cannot question those testimonies as the people making them are no longer around to answer questions. And, evidence is not necessarily proof. The bible is not proof of god's existence.

Yep, yep, point made.

 

[CatPee]

Yeah man. Honestly its interesting to see Atheists and Theists assert the same thing. Its a matter of choosing whether it is all true or its not. Does not mean Im going to hate on the other person or anything but we all seek truth right?

No, you just actually seek validation and self-justification for your own beliefs. You don't actually seek to have debates or see others' points of view; all you want is others to think the same as you. It's just some twisted rationale to try and make atheists and those of other faiths admit that the Bible is evidence for your definition of "God".

In addition, there's a massive difference between regarding something as terrible, awful, totally invalid "evidence" and factual evidence that conclusively proves something, especially the existence of a divine being.

 

[Cyan]

Yeah man. Honestly its interesting to see Atheists and Theists assert the same thing. Its a matter of choosing whether it is all true or its not.

I'd say it's a matter of assessing the strength of the evidence and then coming to the appropriate conclusion. It's not a matter of choosing at all.

Do we all agree that evidence or proof would have to be true? Im pretty sure we all agree on that one.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

 

[Ashes]

Oh, enough with this shit... It's not proof, alright? Better, now?

You misunderstood the point of the argument - at least the strand of the argument I'm arguing with you. Evidence/proof can be subjective and still be true. Alright catch you later.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Are your words flawed?

Not that I am aware of, but please feel free to ask for any definitions for any words that I use.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

Humans can use logical thinking to best assess the likelihood of concepts existing or not. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence must exist to support it. If I wanted to insist that Wolverine exists, turning to a comic book is meaningless. Referring to the bible is meaningless. It can be just be thought of as a list of claims. The next step is to try to find evidence support such claims. We have evidence that a Jesus really did exist. But what of his powers? Early on, scientists were convinced of the validity of the bible and set forth to prove its claims. Early geography was the study of formations caused by the biblical flood. People believed the earth was only six thousand years old and set out to find observable proof of the claims.

There is a reason why science no longer believes such nonsense. Absolutely no evidence could be found to support those claims. Often, they found extremely contradictory evidence. The earth is now dated at 4 billion years old with high certainty. It would require an infinitely powerful being to exist to falsify evidence to explain a young earth now.

The bible is completely useless as "evidence". Again, claiming it is evidence of anything is more opinion than fact.

Its sort of like inception. Wolverine exists as soon as you mention it. Whether its fiction or non fiction has to be decided.

 

[CatPee]

Its sort of like inception. Wolverine exists as soon as you mention it. Whether its fiction or non fiction has to be decided.

You're aware of Zeus, correct? I recall Hanuman was mentioned in the other thread as well.

They've been mentioned, so surely they exist. As does our True Lord Sir Squiddington IV.

 

[RyanReedyMusic]

No, you just actually seek validation and self-justification for your own beliefs. You don't actually seek to have debates or see others' points of view; all you want is others to think the same as you. It's just some twisted rationale to try and make atheists and those of other faiths admit that the Bible is evidence for your definition of "God".

In addition, there's a massive difference between regarding something as terrible, awful, totally invalid "evidence" and factual evidence that conclusively proves something, especially the existence of a divine being.

So your thinking for me. I stated what I came in here for and you deny what I said. You say its something else entirely. Does that make any sense to you at all? Interesting